|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 10, 2022 15:24:25 GMT
Now John Roberts has come out and said “it’s roll should not be called into question just because people disagree with its decisions”.
Phooey! This attitude they have of “we have spoken and you’re not allowed to question us” drives me nuts.
The American People have the right to question every decision the Court makes. Especially when the justices lie at their confirmation hearings and use their own personal beliefs to dictate their decisions and make things up to justify it. Decisions need to be made with a disinterested third party attitude and their personal beliefs should have nothing to do with decisions that affect all Americans.
And I have to say these guys sure are thin skinned.
From Channel 7 ABC News/ AP
”Chief Justice John Roberts defends legitimacy of court”
“DENVER -- Chief Justice John Roberts defended the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, saying its role should not be called into question just because people disagree with its decisions.
When asked to reflect on the last year at the court in his first public appearance since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Roberts said Friday he was concerned that lately some critics of the court's controversial decisions have questioned the legitimacy of the court, which he said was a mistake. He did not mention any specific cases or critics by name.
"If the court doesn't retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, I'm not sure who would take up that mantle. You don't want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don't want public opinion to be the guide about what the appropriate decision is," Roberts said while being interviewed by two judges from the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at its conference in Colorado Springs.
Roberts described the last year as an unusual and difficult one, pointing to the public not be allowed inside the court, closed in 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic, as one hardship. He also said it was "gut wrenching" to drive into the Supreme Court that was surrounded by barricades every day.
The barriers were installed in May when protests erupted outside the court and outside the homes of some Supreme Court justices after there was an unprecedented leak of a draft opinion indicating the justices were planning to overturn Roe v. Wade, which provided women constitutional protections for abortion for nearly 50 years. The barriers are gone and the public will be allowed back inside when the court's new session begins in October but an investigation ordered by Roberts into the leak continues.
Speaking at the same conference Thursday, Justice Neil Gorsuch said it is "terribly important" to identify the leaker and said he is expecting a report on the progress of the investigation, "I hope soon."
Gorsuch condemned the leak, as have other justices who have addressed it publicly.
"Improper efforts to influence judicial decision-making, from whatever side, from whomever, are a threat to the judicial decision-making process," Gorsuch said. Reporters from The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg attended the talk.
The leaked draft was largely incorporated into Justice Samuel Alito's final opinion in June that overturned Roe v. Wade in a case upholding Mississippi's law banning abortion after 15 weeks. The ruling paved the way for severe abortion restrictions or bans in nearly half of U.S. states.
In June's ruling, Roberts, appointed to the court in 2005 by former President George W. Bush, voted to uphold Mississippi's law but he did not join the conservative justices in also overturning Roe v. Wade, as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to end a pregnancy. He wrote that there was no need to overturn the broad precedents to uphold the state law, saying he would take "a more measured course."
Roberts has spoken out repeatedly about the importance of the judiciary's independence and to rebut perceptions of the court as a political institution not much different than Congress or the presidency.
Opinion polls since the leak and the release of the final abortion decision, though, have shown a sharp drop in approval of the court and confidence in the institution.
When asked what the public might not know about how the court work, Roberts emphasized the collegiality among the justices and the court's tradition of shaking hands before starting conferences or taking the bench. After the justices might disagree about a decision, everyone eats together in the court's dining room where they talk about everything but work, he said. He said it's not borne out of "fake affection" but a respect that comes from the push and pull of explaining ideas and listening to the responses to them.
"We have a common calling and we act like it," he said.”
|
|
carhoch
Pearl Clutcher
Be yourself everybody else is already taken
Posts: 2,991
Location: We’re RV’s so It change all the time .
Jun 28, 2014 21:46:39 GMT
|
Post by carhoch on Sept 10, 2022 16:02:27 GMT
He can say whatever he wants out loud but when he looks in the mirror he knows that the Supreme Court legacy is tainted .
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Sept 10, 2022 16:16:59 GMT
He is an institutionalist who I know is frustrated with the lack of respect for his institution, but he can look in the mirror to see why the Court has become so disrespected.
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Sept 10, 2022 17:24:40 GMT
When your decisions reflect a lack of adherence to to being apolitical you shouldn’t be suprised when people question the legitimacy of the institution. If he wants the institution to regain respect he needs to do a better job as Chief Justice. History will not look kindly on the Robert’s Court - if we have a democracy left
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Sept 10, 2022 18:14:00 GMT
I’m not surprised that he would say that. His own legacy has been called into question. I believe that this SS is indeed political.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 10, 2022 20:44:15 GMT
How about not addressing the justice who is making decisions in cases where his wife has been involved one way or another. With a lot more coming... Is that collusion? Complicity? Speak about IMPROPER!!!!
"Improper efforts to influence judicial decision-making, from whatever side, from whomever, are a threat to the judicial decision-making process," Gorsuch said. Reporters from The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg attended the talk.
|
|
dawnnikol
Prolific Pea
'A life without books is a life not lived.' Jay Kristoff
Posts: 7,893
Sept 21, 2015 18:39:25 GMT
|
Post by dawnnikol on Sept 10, 2022 20:47:46 GMT
You don't want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don't want public opinion to be the guide about what the appropriate decision is," Roberts said Perhaps he should also include religion not being the determining factor in decisions? Oh, wait..
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 11, 2022 1:44:19 GMT
It’s not just the decisions that are and should be questioned it’s the lack of ethics among the justices as well.
Clarence Thomas’s wife is involved in situations that have come before the court or will. Yet he refuses to recuse himself.
Same with Barrett.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 11, 2022 1:48:36 GMT
Their should be an asterisk by each of their names on how they got hearings because of the slight of hand McConnell pulled.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 11, 2022 4:07:09 GMT
Given how they just overturned a decision that had been settled law for almost 50 years, it’s pretty rich for them to say that SC rulings can’t be questioned. The fascist wing of the court disliked the Roe ruling so much they just said, nah, we’re going to cancel it.
No branch of government is perfect or immune to criticism.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 11, 2022 4:16:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Sept 11, 2022 11:56:01 GMT
I do wonder from time to time who bought beer boys markers and if they will be for sale at any point….
You know, someone paid off all that magically disappearing debt. Do they still secretly hold it? Can it be bought out, you know, like mob debt? Would he change his rulings by whomever holds that debt?
Until that magically disappearing debt is accounted for, any SC he sits on is tainted
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 11, 2022 15:00:58 GMT
“Opinion When did religious belief become an excuse to discriminate?”
By Louise Melling September 7, 2022 at 3:27 p.m. EDT
“Louise Melling is deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Emboldened by the U.S. Supreme Court, today’s religious right is pressing in courts nationwide for what amounts to a sweeping right to discriminate. U.S. courts are flooded with cases brought by institutions claiming their right to religious freedom entitles them to refuse to comply with anti-discrimination laws.
Under the banner of religion, an employer is asserting a right to deny its workers insurance coverage for drugs that prevent HIV— an argument that just Wednesday found favor in federal court. Religiously affiliated schools posit a right to fire unmarried pregnant women. And taxpayer-funded child placement agencies turn away families seeking to foster or adopt because they are Jewish, Catholic or a same-sex couple.
For the past decade, the American Civil Liberties Union has tracked cases invoking a religious right to discriminate, and we’ve never been more alarmed. The sheer number of these cases has exploded. In 2012, the first ACLU report documenting them came in at seven single-spaced pages. The most recent report runs close to 30.
The scope of these claims has also mushroomed. When we began our monitoring, most claimants sought to restrict women’s access to abortion and contraception and deny wedding services to same-sex couples. Now, in the name of religion, businesses assert a right to refuse to hire LGBTQ people, public school teachers a right to misgender students and others a right to discriminate against terminally ill patients exploring end of life options.
These efforts are simply incompatible with a pluralistic constitutional democracy that values both equality and religious freedom. Religious freedom, after all, doesn’t mean a right to hurt others.
Consider an example currently making headlines from Texas. On Wednesday, a U.S. district judge accepted the argument of a for-profit business that it has a right to deny employees insurance coverage for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), pioneering drugs used to prevent the transmission of HIV that can cost as much as $20,000 a year. The employer argued that buying insurance that covers this treatment — as required by federal law — “substantially burdens” its religious freedom because “homosexual behavior” conflicts with its Christian faith. The court accepted the argument, letting the employer’s religious beliefs override the health of its employees.
The PrEP case is no outlier. In Massachusetts, the Salvation Army is arguing that its shelters can discriminate against people with opioid use disorder who rely on medication-assisted therapy, the most effective treatment for addiction. The charity maintains that its objection is religiously based and should therefore trump its obligations under federal civil rights law to serve people with disabilities.
Proponents of religious exemptions portray them as a shield to protect religious people from an increasingly secular United States. In reality, they’ve become a sword wielded to impose religious beliefs on others.
There’s a straightforward explanation for the surge we’re seeing in religious refusals. In recent years, the Supreme Court has found in decision after decision that requiring compliance with anti-discrimination laws injures Christians, even as it blatantly ignores egregious forms of discrimination inflicted on women, racial minorities and LGBTQ people.
Particularly important was the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the arts and crafts chain challenged a requirement that employer insurance cover contraception. In that case, the court expressly extended religious exemptions to “the commercial, profit-making world,” to quote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for the first time.
In a recent speech, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., quoting scripture, implored “champions of religious liberty” to “go out as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves” to challenge the “growing hostility to religion” in America. The justice, who penned the Hobby Lobby opinion, now has a solid majority hungry to give these “champions” whatever they want.
This fall, the court will hear a major case asserting a constitutional right to discriminate. A public website design business in Colorado is objecting, on religious grounds, to serving same-sex couples seeking a wedding website. Although the court agreed to hear only the claim asserting a free-speech right to discriminate, declining to hear the religious freedom claim, a ruling in favor of the business could entitle those with religious or any other objections to ignore anti-discrimination laws. The United States could soon see bakeries with “wedding cakes for heterosexuals only” signs next door to shuttered abortion clinics.
We have been here before. In the mid-1960s, a white supremacist who refused to serve Black people at his South Carolina barbecue restaurants argued that he was entitled to a religious exemption from the newly enacted Civil Rights Act. His lawyers told a trial court that the owner believed “as a matter of faith that racial intermixing or any contribution thereto contravenes the will of God,” and therefore enforcing the Civil Rights Act against him “constitute[d] State interference with the free practice of his religion.” The Supreme Court dismissed the argument as “patently frivolous.”
Champions of this “patently frivolous” claim are back before a remade Supreme Court. Half a century ago, the court snuffed out the flame on claims that religious freedom gave institutions the right to violate anti-discrimination laws. This time, it is lighting the match.”
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Sept 11, 2022 16:25:30 GMT
Yet it is okay to criticize or question the legitimacy of our DOJ, the CIA, The FBI, our President, our voting system, etc, etc,etc? A bit of a disconnect there in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 11, 2022 16:32:24 GMT
More importantly the SCOTUS should not question my choice of medical care for my body and my family's, nor my choice of doctor or school or what I read or eat!! My choice of who I love, marry, or have sex with as long it is not the vulnerable or minors.
But I also have the right to have safe food to eat, air to breathe, and roads to drive on, mostly regulated by the experts in our government with citizen input!
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 11, 2022 23:39:55 GMT
From The Washington Post
“Opinion What Chief Justice Roberts misses”
By Ruth Marcus
September 11, 2022 at 3:29 p.m. EDT
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. says it’s wrong for people to deem the court illegitimate because its decisions are unpopular. He’s right — but his defense badly misses the point of why the court has fallen so far in public esteem.
“Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court,” Roberts told a judicial conference in Colorado on Friday. The chief justice’s convenient framing fails to fully capture or acknowledge what’s going on. Yes, a majority of the public is angry about the court’s decision in June to eliminate constitutional protection for the right to abortion. But the bottom-line result isn’t the only reason for the fury.
The inflamed public reaction stems also from the fact that the law changed because the court’s membership changed. The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was the culmination of a political and politicized process to bolster the conservative majority by any means necessary. And this stacked court has — time after time, but most flagrantly in overruling Roe v. Wade — abandoned normal rules of restraint, twisted or ignored doctrine, and substituted raw power to achieve its desired result.
What liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor has aptly termed a “restless and newly constituted court” could finally work its will, and so it did. That is the very definition of an “activist court,” as Vice President Harris recently described it.
And this is how the institution undermines its own legitimacy. If the court behaves like just another political body, it loses the only power it has, of achieving public acceptance of its rulings.
The chief justice understands this better than anyone. In 2006, at the end of his first term on the court, he stressed the “high priority to keep any kind of partisan divide out of the judiciary” and noted that his colleagues “don’t want the court to seem to be lurching around because of changes in personnel.”
Roberts tried valiantly to prevent this. He warned in Dobbs of the “serious jolt to the legal system,” precisely because he knew the institution was putting itself at risk by moving so precipitously and unnecessarily.
Now, the court is reaping what Roberts cautioned it against sowing. The court’s approval rating has tanked. And Roberts finds himself in the awkward position of defending against the very criticism he knew was coming.
As with any smart advocate, his solution is to recast the debate in more attractive and defensible terms — the danger of the court being swayed by popular opinion or cowed by public backlash.”
|
|
Anita
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,646
Location: Kansas City -ish
Jun 27, 2014 2:38:58 GMT
|
Post by Anita on Sept 12, 2022 2:58:59 GMT
Boo freaking hoo. He can't defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 13, 2022 2:45:56 GMT
I still can’t over this idea they honestly believe we mortals can’t criticize their decisions.
|
|
ComplicatedLady
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,037
Location: Valley of the Sun
Jul 26, 2014 21:02:07 GMT
|
Post by ComplicatedLady on Sept 13, 2022 5:01:53 GMT
He can say whatever he wants out loud but when he looks in the mirror he knows that the Supreme Court legacy is tainted .
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Sept 13, 2022 5:29:20 GMT
More importantly the SCOTUS should not question my choice of medical care for my body and my family's, nor my choice of doctor or school or what I read or eat!! My choice of who I love, marry, or have sex with as long it is not the vulnerable or minors. But I also have the right to have safe food to eat, air to breathe, and roads to drive on, mostly regulated by the experts in our government with citizen input!Sure. For now.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 14, 2022 21:51:42 GMT
Love this. Kagan essentially told her colleagues they're the reason the court is losing legitimacy. www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-elena-kagan-forfeit-legitimacy-precedent/Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Monday cautioned that courts look political and forfeit legitimacy when they needlessly overturn precedent and decide more than they have to.
"Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves ... when they instead stray into places where it looks like they're an extension of the political process or when they're imposing their own personal preferences," Kagan saidwww.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/14/kagan-speech-supreme-court-legitimacy-roberts/She added that the public has a right to expect that “changes in personnel don’t send the entire legal system up for grabs.” That’s as clear an indictment of the six right-wing justices as you are going to hear. Indeed, Kagan made a few irrefutable points while eviscerating Roberts’s feigned cluelessness.
|
|